Norman, thank you, and yes ..... distance from rod tip to butt guide was part of the equation. It was bugging me last night after I had posted it was rod length as part of the equation, so I went back through some of the older threads where the discussion was about the high choke guide option. There is was !!! Butt guide to rod tip ..... duh me lol

Part of my reasoning to try and keep the high choke guide position the same as the choke guide position in a standard KR set up, is because I did that old NGC thing of aligning the reels spool shaft with the edge or a table or counter, and using where the that edge intersected with the rod blank, as your choke point. The point where they intersected was inside of, meaning closer to the reel, than from where the KR software called for the choke guide's position.

Of course, last night after making my prior post, I decided to read the NGC article in this site's library, and in there it said because the up sweeps on reels can vary, the 27x method works better for placing the choke guide.

The rods out in the boat so I have yet to check where I have the choke guide placed compared to where the 27x method would place it. But I will ....just to see how they compare.

My biggest thing, and it's perhaps to my detriment, is that the foremost factor in my mind, is that I am using fluorocarbon line. Very good handling fluorocarbon line, but still way stiffer than the smaller sized braids being talked about in this thread. The standard KR set up casts so much better than the COF and supposed NGC factory rods that I used to fish with, that I didn't want to vary from it too much.

Norman -

How do you go about finding your Butt guide starting point on longer rods for the K-R Concept? What would you consider a "longer rod?"

Could you please share an example of how you might go about determining this location on a 3+1 specification for an 8-foot rod? Is this the same procedure for all, longer rods?

I played around with the KR GPS for rod lengths of 8, 9,10 and 12-foot with either a 4000 or 5000 series reel and #10-15 braid. I noticed the length of the Reduction Train (RT) increased with increased rod length. The suggested placement for the Belly/Choke guide, naturally, also moved further away from the spool axel tip as rod length increased.

* The GPS suggested the 20H guide group with the data I entered.
* millimeter measurements below are rounded up/down to nearest millimeter.

8-foot RT = 23.52 inches (597 mm); Belly/Choke to Spool Axel Tip at Mid Stroke = 45.02 inches (1,144 mm).
9-foot: RT = 28.56 inches (725 mm); Belly/Choke to Spool Axel Tip at Mid Stroke = 50.06 inches (1,2721 mm).
10-foot: RT = 33.6 inches (853 mm); Belly/Choke to Spool Axel Tip = 55.1 inches (1,400 mm).
12-foot: RT = 43.68 inches (1,109 mm); Belly/Choke to Spool Axel Tip =65.18 inches (1,656 mm).

The RT length increases by 5.04 inches (128 mm) with each additional foot of rod length from 8 to 12 feet. If I divide 5 inches by 12 inches I get 0.42 inches. This is a clue for sure into the workings of the GPS.

However, the suggestion for the Butt guide placement remained the same at 21.5 inches (546 mm) for all four rods and both reel sizes. I found this interesting! Is it a max limit, or glitch, for the calculator? Or is it a statement about the maximum placement suggested for the K-R and the Butt guide on longer rods?

David -

You may have already read the article, "GPS: Reel Measurement VS 27X" at Angler's Resource. (Type in this phrase in the search bar on the AR site if you want to find it - it won't let me copy the link for you.) It is an interesting read and mentions reel up sweep angle for determining the location of the belly/choke guide. One quote from the article that summarized things for me:

"Research and experimentation seem to support the idea that spool axel ANGLE and guide HEIGHT are the two most critical factors in optimum layout. By building with these factors in mind, builders are producing rods that have choke points up to 25% closer to the reel. These rods use at least one less reduction guide and end up lighter, faster, more sensitive and longer casting than comparable NGC rods."

Some have made the comment that spool up sweep angle plays little to no role in how the line leaves the reel as it is pulled through the guides. I can buy this idea especially with light braid. What do you think? I really value your input because you use straight fluorocarbon line and don't "cheat" by using light braid that makes up for a multitude of guide layout sins. Ha! The way I figure it, and I think chris c nash would agree, if you can achieve a smooth flowing train with a stiffer line, you have maximized that layout for light braid as well. I agree! Do you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2024 06:36PM by Les Cline.

Some have made the comment that spool up sweep angle plays little to no role in how the line leaves the reel as it is pulled through the guides. I can buy this idea especially with light braid. What do you think? I really value your input because you use straight fluorocarbon line and don't "cheat" by using light braid that makes up for a multitude of guide layout sins. Ha! The way I figure it, and I think chris c nash would agree, if you can achieve a smooth flowing train with a stiffer line, you have maximized that layout for light braid as well. I agree! Do you?



I have a feeling the above was directed at me , I don't think I've ever said spool upsweep angle plays no role , what I did say and stand by is that when you are dealing with spinning setups the line choice/ characteristics trumps everything else including reel specs , reel foot upsweep , spool diameter and the position and placement of the guides etc.. .

It's no secret as to why David's setup works well , it's because David understood from the beginning that his particular line choice was different than most other peoples and he with the help of Norm, chose guides that minimized the angle changes which as expected performed better for him , job well done . Mono and Flouro will not perform as well as braid on these KR concept layouts and adjustments need to be made whether it be slightly larger ring sizes or an overall longer reduction train that doesn't force the line down so quickly .

Les, no I hadn't read that article, but I just did. Thank you very much for supplying and suggesting that link. Definitely an interesting read, and it brings something that I questioned when I read the NGC article in the library. That being, "Reel upsweep angle isn’t really an issue in casting, however, as reels don’t “shoot” line like a rifle shoots a bullet." After reading that I thought, that's true. Line is pulled off the spool of a spinning reel. But if the the angle of the center of the spool isn't in line with the guides, it's going to create more friction on one side of the spool than the other. Isn't it? .Line is going to come off the spool more easily, if you are pulling it off in line with the center line of the spool.

Like you suggest, I can understand up sweep not playing as an important role in casting performance with light braid, but with stiffer lines, it has to play a larger role. It just has to.

I mentioned that I would bring my 3+1 rod in from the boat and check its' choke guide placement versus the 27x method. The spool lip diameter of the reel is 1.77". Using the 27x formula would put the choke guide 47.79" from the spool lip. The distance from the spool lip, to where I have my high choke guide placed. 42.25" If I measure from the spool lip to where a straight line through my reduction train brings the line down to the blank, I have a KB 5.5 placed there. I have a measurement of 46.5". Not all that far off from what the 27x placement method calls for. And if I am correct in my interpretation, in the 27x method you are calculating where the straight line intersects the blank. A 1.25" difference. No biggie. But here is the rub .....

When I mentioned doing the NGC thing of aligning the spool shaft with the table edge thing, I never recorded that distance. As I mentioned earlier, the intersection point with the blank was inside, closer to the reel, than where I was placing the choke guide. What I didn't mention, because I thought I had done something wrong, is how far inside of where my choke guide is placed. It was WAY inside of where the choke guide was, Which is why I thought I did something wrong. I'm not a spinning rod guy. I followed the KR software to a tee on spinning rod builds prior to venturing into this high choke guide option. Well I just went out and did the spool shaft alignment thing again, and I marked the blank and then measured it. From the spool lip to where the intersection of the imaginary line from the spool shaft to the blank. 32.5". 9.75" inside of where I have my choke guide placed.

With that big of a difference I would think it's understandable that I thought I was doing something wrong.

I use all Shimano reels, so I decided to get one of my other spinning rods and see what kind of up sweep the reel I had on it, had. The reel I have been speaking about so far is a Sahara 3000 FE. I got a rod that has an Ultegra C3000. The measurement to the imaginary line intersecting with the blank, 43.625" Quite a bit of difference in the up sweep of those two reels. Both being Shimano reels, I evidently wrongly assumed, that their geometries would be fairly close to each other. Not the case, and I can actually see the difference when laying the two reels side by side.


Anyhow .... rambling again. I can certainly see the usefulness of the 27x method. Not that I have ever officially used it to set up a guide train, but the numbers of where the line actually comes down to the blank, isn't that far off. But if you use stiffer lines on spinning gear, a person may want to take the up sweep on the reel they'll be using on a particular rod, into more consideration. And if you're looking for ultimate casting performance, you probably definitely should. Might not have to be strictly adhered to it, and I say that only because how close it would be on the rod I've been discussing this entire thread. I mean, 32 1/2" from the spool lip?

Tell ya what though. I have an OG finish MB 724 X ray blank that I sanded before noticing it was a bit less straight than I care for. As I sanded it, I understandably can't return it, but I can use it as a test bed for different guide lay outs.

And Les ..... most definitely I believe that if a person can build a guide train that casts stiffer lines with ease, that they've built a guide train that will cast far more supple lines, even better. I have actually tried braid on spinning gear, but just can't past how much it bows in the wind. I had it on one of my rods for about 2 months. Maybe a little less. In that time there were two things I absolutely loved about it. Especially when compared to using fluorocarbon line on spinning gear. Number one had to be the lack of the evidence of twist in the line. Never once in those two months did I have to drag the line behind the boat while idling, to get twist out of the line. With fluorocarbon line, depending on the bait I'm fishing, or how much I'm using it .... I may have to drag the line behind the boat twice in a full day of fishing, to remove twist from the line. The second thing I loved about it, was how well it cast. Even with super light stuff, I could cast it further than really needed. I can understand why people love it on spinning gear. But for me the draw backs, pretty much needing to use a leader, it bowing excessively in wind, and IMO, less feel than fluorocarbon when using light baits, outweigh the benefits. But that's just me.

Just a FWIW , when I say line choice decides everything what I mean is how important factors like upsweep angle , spool diameter become is based on your line choice . Light supple braid works incredible well regardless of a reels upsweep angle and spool diameter but once you move to another line size or type, upsweep angle , spool diameter , guide types, size , height and placement become much more critical . The less supple the line the more important those factors become . It's generally basic common sense stuff and it's easy to over think it.


Wait until Les gets to spinners with a parallel foot lol .

Chris, I'm not sure, but I think Les may have been referencing what I quoted from the library article on NGC, when he mentioned the thinking that up sweep doesn't play a factor in casting performance.

I definitely agree with you that line choice has to be foremost in your mind when dealing with spinning gear. And thank you for the compliments by the way. I truly appreciate them. And you're right in that because of my line choice, I was and am concerned with how quickly the line gets brought down to the rod blank. I am convinced that the way the 3+1 set up softens that angle, is responsible for the difference in casting performance over a standard KR set up.

But if softening that angle helps, softening the angle that the line comes off the spool will help too. It's has got to be more of a consideration with more stiff lines than it is with light braids. Or maybe more of a consideration is the wrong phrase. More of a factor is probably more appropriate. As I said in my recent post, I don't think you need to, or even want to strictly adhere to where up sweep would indicate to place the choke guide, but considering it by maybe changing your butt guide placement. In my case, with this particular reel and its' more up sweep, perhaps moving the butt guide in closer to the reel?

I mentioned measuring where the Ultegra reel's up sweep would place the choke guide. Looking at the measurements for the Ultegra and the Sahara I posted above, the Ultegra has less up sweep, and it's a better casting reel than the Sahara. I currently have 8# test on the Ultegra that I just put on in anticipation of the up coming fishing season. If Tatsu weren't so pricey, I wouldn't mind stripping it off and putting on 10# test to see how it casts with this 3+1 set up. I'm am sure it would cast better than the Sahara, but how much better is the question. I know if I put my Vanford on this 3+1 rod, it would cast amazingly. The Vanford is a sweet casting reel. That long stroke spool really makes a difference.

chris -

I was not intending to direct the spool up sweep issue at you. My apologies if it came across that way. I should have started a new paragraph instead of putting two ideas into only one.

I did, however, intend to include you on a comment attributed to you I agree with - that a good layout that casts stiffer line well will cast more supple line even better - so test with a stiffer line than you intend to use. I've always remembered your words since I read them awhile ago on another thread. Now that David has a layout that will cast #10 fluoro well, I know I can reliably expect the same layout (or in the same ballpark) to cast my #15 to #20 braid and leader well with the 20H group 3+1 spec.

You make a great point about the intentionality of David's choices leading to a successful outcome. He and Norm did a lot of work to figure out a guide train to fit the specifics at hand, try different ideas, and tweak them. No wonder the rod has performed well. Putting in the effort paid off in spades!

This seems to be what you also do with your surf builds - you get into the details that make a difference. And since you are here, I want to ask if you have ever tried the 3+1 on a surf rod? Why or why not? How long are the rods you build? What are your observations about the RT length on your longer rods?

It IS easy to overthink things!

David -

I took out a piece of paper and drew a sketch of a rod and reel. Then, I started making marks on it to indicate the different points from the spool axel tip and axel line intersections you mentioned. The 27X was furthest out at 47.79" and the closest in was 32.5".That's a pretty good spread for the Belly/Choke guide position! I can see why you were scratching your head at times!

A couple questions:
1.) What is the length from the Butt guide to the tip of the rod?
2.) What is the length from the Butt guide to the high profile Belly guide?
3.) Is the length from Butt guide to high profile Belly guide a factor of about 0.42 +/-?

Just curious.

The real proof is in your satisfaction with the way the rod casts!

My apologies to Les and to David if I read it wrong which I apparently did . I saw my name at the end of the post Les made and I thought back to comments I made in older threads and I do remember saying that if the line you choose is supple and forgiving enough that reel upsweep and spool diameter etc is essentially a non factor or not near the factor it would be compared to using a heavier less forgiving line so I took it as being directed at me , again my apologies .


Les, I tend to stick with Fuji's tried and true 3 guide reduction train recommendations . I stay far away from using a multitude of guide sizes like size 8 to 7's or 6's to 5 's etc .. because with the line I use there is zero benefit to using different guide sizes that more gradually diminish the line direction . Now if I was using mono or flouro I would definitely consider using different guide sizes because that could be beneficial but it's not beneficial at all with the line I use .

There is no benefit to extending the reduction train length or to employ more guide sizes in an attempt to eliminate sharper angles with light braid . The only time extending the reduction train length is beneficial is when your line choice forces you to extend it .

Les, butt guide to rod tip, 52.25". Using the .42 multiplier gives a butt to high choke guide measurement of 21.945". The standard KR set up calls for the choke guide to be 22" from the butt guide. On my rod. it's 22.25". Using the .45 multiplier, the choke guide would be at 23.512" from the butt guide. As I said in an earlier post, I wanted to keep the high choke guide position the same, or close to the same as the KR software calls out for their standard set up.

My thinking behind wanting to do that was that the line needing to pass through the taller choke guide, would cause the point where the line actually came to the blank, to be pushed further down the blank. Making the line angle more shallow, helping it "turn the corner" a little better. And wanting that turn to be more gradual. I used, just as I have done on all of my spinning rod builds, a KB 5.5 and followed that with KT5's the rest of the way out.

I have a couple of spinning rods that I built using KT 4.5's as running guides, but I still used a KB 5.5 in the choke guide position because of its' albeit small, difference in height.

I realize that some reading this may be thinking that the line angle change from the standard KR set up , to the high choke guide set up, is not that drastic. And it's not. In an earlier thread concerning this high choke guide set up, it was mentioned by a member or two, that such small changes don't amount to what I was believing they would. At that time I pulled up a web site that would calculate the angles of a right triangle and put in the pertinent information for each guide train set up. I used the height of a 20H Fuji guide as the height of side A, and the distance from the 20H guide to the point where the line comes down to the rod blank in each set up, for the length of side B. In a standard KR set up that would be where the KB choke guide is placed. On the high choke guide set up, I measured to the KB past the high choke guide's position.

We can debate whether the point where the line actually comes down to the blank is the choke guide position, or if the choke guide position is a calculated point. My interest was in the amount the line angle changed from the butt guide, to where the line came to the blank. The change in line angle was less than 1 degree. How is a 1 degree shallowing of the line angle going to make a big difference, right? I know that's what I thought. And I thought, why am I putting so much thought into something that probably isn't going to make a bit of difference?

I did some thinking trying to figure out why such a small change in angle would make a leader knot pass more easily through the guides. Or why it would aid in casting lighter baits with more stiff lines? Then I started thinking of it as a hill. The angle of the hill didn't change much, but its' length did. It's only a 1 degree change in angle, but it's an 18% change in the length of the hypotenuse. The added length of the hypotenuse, the hill ..... makes it more gradual.

It being more gradual has to be what's causing the quieting of a leader knot passing through the guides, and the increase in casting performance. If this line of thinking isn't logical, I am more than open to someone sharing their thinking of why such a small change in line angle, would produce the type of results I and others have experienced. There's definitely something to it. And I like it. I like it a lot.

chris -

Thank you for your response. Your past comments on the importance of line size and type in the K-R Concept brought many things together for me when I was first catching on to all this, and some lightbulbs started to go on about why Fuji designed this concept the way it did. The 3+1 is definitely not always the best (or even necessary) layout for guides as you point out....unless the line dictates it.

David -

Thanks for taking the time to measure all that out! You did end up with your high profile belly guide very close to where the KR GPS located the choker/belly guide for the 3-guide spec....within a quarter-inch! And you were between the 0.42 and 0.45 ratios. And it all laid out in a way that you liked. Very sweet!

A 1-degree of angle change makes an 18% change in the distance/hypotenuse of that change?....wow! That is a difference that would definitely show up....and sounds like it did show up for you in your test casting. Just what you were looking for! I love happy endings.

It does make sense that small changes can have noticeable impacts. If I were standing on that hill with a laser pointed down at the base, then moved the laser up 1-degree, the point where the laser hit the ground would be further away from the original point - and the length the laser was travelling would be longer. (Just like when highway engineers take some of the grade/angle out of a slope by making the slope longer. The distance from top to bottom is the same but is stretched out over more distance, making the change more gradual and more manageable for the traffic.)

I'm really warming up to the idea of the added versatility of the 3+1 to throw multiple line types with the same rod. I could carry a reel with braid and a reel with mono or fluoro - switch as I wanted.

Les, the 1 degree change in angle isn't responsible for the 18% increase in the length of the hypotenuse. The difference in the distance between where the line comes to the blank in a standard KR set up, and where the line comes down to the blank in a high choke guide set up, is. The base line grew in length, so the length of the hypotenuse is going to grow accordingly.

If the base line remained the same, and you change the angle of the hypotenuse by 1 degree less, it's going to shorten your A side, the vertical height of the triangle, as well as the length of the hypotenuse.

I’m not sure if the spool angle you guys are referring to is the angle of the spool axis as compared to the rod blank. If so, I have noticed that pretty much all my spinning reels appear to have similar angles, except for my ‘22 Exists. They seem to be noticeable sharper (angled upward). This seemed odd as it doesn’t look like the angle matched up to the reduction path, BUT the Exist is the smoothest casting spinning reel I own (smooth as in it feels and sounds like the coils go effortlessly through the guides). I have paid attention to the coils during the cast and have made the assessment that gravity pulls the coils downward, so pointing sharper upward allows it to line up better line up by the time it gets to the first reduction guide. I don’t know how this relates to spacing of the guides. I just space like I always have (according to Fuji’s recommendation) and all my spinning reels cast fine, the sharper angled Exist just casts a little smoother.

Casting distance, I can’t tell as I have shallow spools, and I can cast all my spinning reels to the end of the spool if I wanted (about 75-80 yards).

John, yes .... that is the angle I am talking about. I pulled up the page for the Exist to see if I could see what you're talking about. Boy, it sure does look like it has a high degree of up sweep. The reel I'm talking about here is a Shimano Sahara. No where near the reel that the Exist is. It's actually one of Shimano's lower priced reels. I don't know that it has the up sweep the Exist has, but it has more up sweep than a Shimano Ultegra. or a Vanford. Both of the latter reels cast better than the Sahara. The Vanford is the best casting spinning reel I've ever used. It's also the priciest one I've ever used. I think the long stroke spool on it has a lot to do with its' casting performance

I ordered a 2500 Sustain today to put on the rod I've been discussing in this thread. It has the long stroke spool on it as well. Not that I really need vastly improved casting performance with this rod. It's just that it's a pretty sweet rod, so I think it deserves a better reel than the Sahara.

That, and the color scheme on the Sustain goes better with the rod. lol

David: The Sustain is a good reel, and I think you’ll be happy with it. It is definitely an upgrade to the Vanford. If that is the price point you’re in, in the future, might I suggest the JDM Daiwa Airity, or the Daiwa Certate? The Sustain, depending on your state taxes, is a $342 reel with tax (and a good one at that). You could get the JDM versions (I like that because of the vast spool options… and of course, the price due to the yen/dollar conversion advantage we are currently enjoying) of the Daiwa Airity for $363 (net price delivered) or the Certate for $330. (I added some links, thought I’d mention since it sounds like you’re into spinning). Both these reels are over $600 in the US. SHIMANO options are available there as well.

As far as the spool angle, it seems odd that Daiwa has it different on their flagship. A lot of the Exist technology is trickling down (all the way down to their Tatula, currently), but they seem to keep this sharper angle exclusive to the Exist. The refreshed Certate I just got, has the angle a little steeper, but not quite as steep. I am beginning to believe that the gravity pull on the coils is for real and the reason the coils seem to go through a little more effortlessly. I don’t know how that relates to rod design to take advantage of the physics, so I haven’t changed anything, yet. I would think if your spool axis is pointed dead center, to, or preferably above, the first guide, you’d be more than good. Pointing below it, might be a case for going a size larger on that stripper guide.

[www.digitaka.com]
[www.digitaka.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2024 11:37AM by John Santos.

Man, this thread is a gem of info on the KR concept. I have a lot of things to try on my next couple builds. One of which is going to be larger running guides to accomodate larger leader line knots (which arent FG knots).

David - Im referring to the last guide being the 5.5L on my NFC 722 build above. I go from the 5.5L straight to the running guides (per the spec Fuji laid out in that PDF). I too enjoy this conversation. Im learning a lot!

Les - After studying all the graphics Fuji has put out on the KR 3 and 3+1 layouts, that's all I can gather from it. It simple softens the corner where you transition from the reduction train to the running guides. Makes perfect sense in my mind.

For my 722 layout with the 16H guide train, what I was saying is that I didn't push out the 5.5L where I lose the bullseye and the bottom of the 5.5L approaches the top of the 6M when look down the guides. This was a small asterisk "tweak" fuji recommended for further tuning of the setup. I do think they are hinting at further increasing the radius of that transition but I kept it off this build simply to keep the heavier guides closer to the reel seat in an attempt to increase sensitivity. I think this setup is the best based on the leader line size and the running guide size ratio. 4.5s are just too small for 10lb leader knots in my opinion, but great for 8lb leader, and 5s are way too small for 12lb leader knots based on what I have seen with my double uni knots. I'll upsize my next builds to a 5.5 or 6 when throwing 10-12lb fluro leader. Glad to hear youve been able to make the 4.5s work for you though. A lot of this is personal preference as I am learning.

I didnt throw the KR 3 guide setup. I just looked at it. Im using small latex bands when setting up my rods, and Im struggling with making good casts without knocking them out. The leader knot will catch and pop them out. I might try taping them next time so I can truly test the layout prior to wrapping.

John, thank you for taking the time to post those links. I truly appreciate you taking the time to do that. I took a look at both of them, and the Airity is a beautiful reel. Surprisingly shallow spool from the way it looks in the pictures. It must have a large ID where the line is stored, which if I were in the market for another spinning reel, I would research more. The larger the diameter the spool body is, the better it is for fluorocarbon line.

With that said, I'm really not into spinning rods. For me they're like braided line. I use them when it's beneficial to use them. Which for me is pretty much just for when I'm fishing for smallmouth where I'm using lighter lines, and lighter baits. I've been talking about spinning rods a lot lately, simply because I'm upgrading from some of my older spinning rod builds. I'd much rather have a bait caster in my hands, but BFS isn't an option for me. It can't do what you can do with a spinning rod.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to post those links.

Brent, ok I get what you were saying now. So you actually pushed your 5.5L further out the blank in order to get bullseyes. That makes total sense to me because that's what was happening with me when I tried to use a guide train of 20H, 10H, 6L, 5.5L that was recommended in an Angler's Resource article. The 6L was so much shorter than the 10H, that I had to a huge spacing between them. Then the 5.5L was so close in height to the 6L, that it was virtually right up against the 6L. I wonder if the 6L 5.5L was a misprint in the 20H guide grouping? At the very least I would think it should have been the 6M and 5.5L that you're working with. And even at that. with a 10H (the second guide in the line) being taller than the 8H you're working with, a 6M would have the same kind of spacing quirk.

The 7m, 6L is definitely the way to go if working with a 20H guide grouping.

As far as being able to secure guides well enough to really seriously test cast them goes .... let me know if you come up with a way of doing it, because I sure haven't. Even taping them on has been a fail for me. They always move on me.

I find the opposite of David meaning the smaller the spool diameter the better it is with stiffer and less supple lines because the smaller diameter the reel spool is the smaller diameter coils it throws . That's why whenever I do spool up with heavier less supple line I always choose reels with a smaller spool diameter. With light braid you can use spinners with huge spool diameters and it will still work fantastic but put a different line on and everything changes .


What I can't figure out is why on earth are you guys reeling leader knots through your guide trains , how long is the leaders you guys use ? I never reel my leaders past the tip top on my 8 foot inshore rod builds , the leader is always outside the tiptop but my leaders rarely ever exceed 3 to 4 feet tops . You guys are involved with fishing that I don't do apparently so that's probably why I'm baffled by it.

Chris: I'm not sure how you accomplish the leader knot to be outside the tip top. That would leave a very short leader, maybe just a couple of inches? The tag end of my line and lure is only 4-5 inches at the start of a cast (maybe 12-15" when drop shotting). I was taught to use a leader of double the length of the rod, so I'm using a 14ft leader. This is for smallmouth fishing so the flourocarbon leader is 6-8lbs, and the braid is 10-16lbs typically. Definitely not heavy gear. With the right knot, its not that big and flies through the guides. Being in the spool might also give momentum on its side when it finally starts going through the guides. It works, and works well, but this is not inshore fishing.

David: I love the shallow spools! Braid is pretty thin and it would be wasteful, or cumbersome (when using backing), if the spool held more line than you can use. Re-spooling is quick and easy. The shallow 2500 series typically holds about 85 yards of 16# braid. Though I can cast that entire amount out if I wanted, my typical casts are about 60 yards or less (I might cast 10 yards further if Im fishing deep water). The deeper spools will interchange with these reels (I have some but found I never use them). Mine are used for Great lakes smallmouth fishing, the smallmouth don't really make that long of runs.

The SJ 703 is quickly becoming my favorite smallmouth dropshot and ned rig rod, and I have used the SB724and the SB722.

Chris, what you're saying in reference is a bit puzzling to me, because it certainly hasn't been my experience. Here is what I've come to believe based on the reels I've used. All Shimano reels. I first tried fluorocarbon on a 2000 Symetre. This was back in the days they were first introducing fluorocarbon for use as a main line. Prior to that it was leader material. It was a complete fail on the 2000 in my opinion. The small diameter spool caused the line to coil tightly and would spring off the spool if I had it anywhere close to what I would consider a full spool.

Not filling it as much kept the line on the spool, but made the coils even tighter. Also, because reels that size have diminished line capacity, when you made any kind of decently long cast, you were half way into the spool. When it coils tightly it now doesn't want to come off the spool, so you're losing casting energy, just to get the line to start to come off the spool. Let alone the energy you lose from the line climbing the spool lip. Not to mention the wind knots I'd get caused by the small coils coupled with line twist. It was IMO, horrible.

The next reel I tried fluorocarbon on was a 4000 Symetre. It cast way better than the 2000 series reel, but man it was a tank of a reel. Way too heavy and made the rods I used it on, severely unbalanced. I used that reel for quite a few years, and when I went to buy another spinning rod, I looked for a reel in between a 2000, and 4000. I don't remember if Shimano offered a 2500 series at the time, but even if they did, I naively went with a 3000 series because I figured with its' higher line capacity, it had a larger diameter spool. The 3000 handled fluorocarbon night and day better than the 2000, and almost as good as the 4000. Of course fluorocarbon line improved immensely over that time frame as well. When I said I naively chose the 3000 series, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that I found out, by pure luck, that the 2500 series have larger diameter spools than the 3000 series. The pure luck came when I went to buy a cheap reel for my super sweet pan fish rod, and they didn't have a 3000 series reel in stock. So I got the 2500 series reel instead.

Got it home and thought .... dang this has a larger diameter spool. I've been buying 2500 series ever since. lol

Anyhow ..... that's been my experience with fluorocarbon main lines on spinning gear. As far as the long leaders some folks use these days. If they're like me back in the days when I used to fish a leader with braid on my flipping and pitching rods, it's because they don't want to keep having to tie on a new leader. When I used a leader I never made it longer than the length of my rod from the tip, to the reel's face. I never wanted a knot going through my guides. And I certainly didn't want one going through the guides of a casting rod.

Now a days I see people using leaders on casting rods all the time, with evidently no difficulties when it comes to back lashes. No back lashes with a spinning rod, but I still wouldn't like the idea of a knot passing through guides.

No doubt we seem to have very different experiences , I don't get what you mean about how tight the line is on the spool , spool size differences have nothing to do at all with how tight one can spool line but it sounds like you had this issue many years ago which is to be expected because braids and non braided lines were not nearly as good as they are today . I think everybody knows that for max casting distance the larger diameter spools provide the benefit of not having the line level at the spool lip dwindle at the same rate as the smaller diameter spools do but if using light braid the impact is very minimal and at least 200 yards of braid will be shed before you will notice a difference at the spool lip . Now , If using heavier line you will notice a much larger difference much sooner but spinners aren't meant to cast heavy less supple lines long distances, that's why retailers sell the 125 and 150 yard spool packages . I always spool 300 yards of braid on my spinners because I often reach the knot that connects the backing to the braid whenever I chose the 125 or 150 spool packages on a single cast while in the surf .


All the spinning reels mentioned in this thread are not true long cast reels , Shimano in particular is a master at marketing and their long cast spool design is just marketing mumbo jumbo , while the spool is slightly longer, ( I have a new Stradic that Shimano markets as having a long cast spool) but it's nonsense . While the spool is very slightly longer in length compared to past versions of the same models on a true long cast spinning reel you will be able to turn the reel handle anywhere from 50 to over 100 times per every single full up/down oscillation cycle .

The latest Aero Technium takes 107 turns of the handle to complete a single up/down oscillation cycle .

The Exist, Sustain, Certate , Stella etc.. don't wrap anywhere remotely close to that amount of line per a single full up/down spool cycle so while these manufacturers like to mention long cast spools because they know that terms sells they are in no way shape or form true long cast spinning reels . I have a few real long cast spinning reels for surf fishing and it takes forever for the spool to complete a single up/down oscillation cycle . You need to turn the handle rapidly and non stop for like 40 seconds straight for the spool to go up/down a single time .

Most of the magic behind true long cast spinners is not only the way they spool line but how much line they spool and how precise they spool the line compared to other spinning reels . A spinners spool diameter and length is just a small part of what makes a spinning reel a true long cast reel , without the extra long worm gear oscillation stroke you don't have a true long cast reel . Now many of Shimano's spinners do have aero wrap oscillation which is a worm gear oscillation system but it's nowhere near the length of the worm gear in a true long cast reel . I was a Penn reel field tester for Mike Joyce and was sent a number of reels to fish and make suggestions about including their long cast 7500 Spinfisher model , I recommended that Penn seriously consider making a much smaller version of that 7500 size spinner but in the end they were only willing to go down to the 5500 size which was still too large and heavy for guys that prefer to fish Size 4000-5000 Stella's, Sustains and Stradics . To this day none of the big reel manufactures offer a true long cast spinner that weighs less than 17 ounces .

Daiwa's Basia series and Shimano's Aero Technium are the real deal true long cast spinners , those are what I use for surf fishing where I have to get way way out their to reach productive water , the souths beaches don't drop into deep water nearly as quickly as in the NE.

Edit: Changed feet to yards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2024 12:11AM by chris c nash.